DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al. (USP 9,334,806), in view of Guo et al. (USP 9,901,892).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4 and 8-10
Carter discloses a method of manufacturing a fuel contacting component that facilitates the reduction of coke formation on at least a surface of the fuel contacting component (abstract).
Carter discloses that the surfaces to be treated include fuel nozzles, swirlers and other fuel component systems of a turbine engine (column 1, lines 5-16).
Carter discloses that the method to reduce the formation of coke is by coating the components such as the fuel nozzle of a gas turbine engine (claims 1-3).
Carter discloses a fuel contacting part that would have a housing and a passage formed therein, and a passage wall facing the passage (Figure 1), where the part is a fuel nozzle and has a surface that is in contact with a liquid hydrocarbon fuel (column 3, line 59 to column 4, line 11). Thus during operation the part (i.e., a fuel nozzle) would necessitate a fuel injection port fluidly connected to a fuel source and configured to inject hydrocarbon fuel in the passage, and would be located downstream of the fuel injection port.
Although, Carter does not disclose a coating of a rare earth metal, Carter does discloses a coating to prevent formation of coke. However, Gou discloses an anti-coking catalyst coating comprising a perovskite of the formula BaCe0.7Zr0.3O3 (i.e., catalyst comprising a rare earth oxide and an alkaline earth metal) (claim 9). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to add to the teachings of Carter by using the perovskite as the coating to reduce coke formation, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Gou.
Gou discloses catalyst which read on the claimed rare earth oxide catalyst particles. That the plurality of catalyst particles promote oxidation of the of coke and formation of filamentous coke morphology is a property of the composition. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
With respect to the limitation that each catalyst particle comprises a rare earth oxide component, the references teach or suggest such a feature, and if there are other particles present not containing a rare earth oxide, then they are not excluded by the comprising language of the claims.
Regarding claim 2
Carter discloses that the particle size of his coating is 0.5 to 100 microns.
As the size range of the reference overlaps the claimed size the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claims 5 and 6
Gou discloses a temperature range from about 500 C to about 1,000 C. As the temperature range of the reference overlaps the claimed range the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claims 11-14
Gou discloses a catalyst of formula AaBbCcDdO3-sigma, where the D can be platinum or silver and 0</=d</=1.2 (column 3, lines 34-60). As such it would be obvious to include platinum or silver, and as the range of the content of noble metal of the reference overlaps the claimed amount the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al. (USP 9,334,806), in view of Guo et al. (USP 9,901,892), as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-14 above, in view of Olver et al. (US 20210231050).
Regarding claim 7
Although, Gou does not disclose a venturi with a diverging section, Gou does disclose that the coating is to be applied to the components of a fuel system for a turbine engine. However, Olver discloses that in a turbine engine has a venturi and a diverging section (para 0019). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add to the teachings of Gou by coating a diverging section and venturi, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Olver.
Claims 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al. (USP 9,334,806), in view of Guo et al. (USP 9,901,892), as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-14 above, in view of Wedderburn et al. (US 20200256250).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 20
Although, Gou does not disclose an aft heat shield with a thermal barrier coating, Gou does disclose that the coating is to be applied to the components of a fuel system for a turbine engine. However, Wedderburn discloses that in a turbine engine the combustor can include one or more aft heat shields which can include a thermal barrier coating (para 0053). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add to the teachings of Gou by having an aft heat shield with a thermal coating and have the catalyst coating applied to the thermal barrier coating, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Wedderburn.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al. (USP 9,334,806), in view of Guo et al. (USP 9,901,892), as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-14 above, in view of Patel et al. (US 20160161123).
Regarding claims 17-19
Although, Gou does not disclose the claimed components of the turbine fuel system, Gou does disclose that the coating is to be applied to the components of a fuel system for a turbine engine. However, Patel discloses that a turbine engine may include a first swirler located radially outward of and adjacent to the duel orifice pilot fuel injector tip (i.e., an array of main fuel orifices), a second swirler located radially outward of the first swirler and a splitter, where the splitter may be positioned downstream of the duel orifice pilot fuel injector tip and a venturi downstream of the splitter including a converging section, a diverging section and a throat (para 0051). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add to the teachings of Carter by including these components in the fuel system of a turbine engine, and to have the coated, with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Patel.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that Guo does not describe any mechanism by which perovskite catalyst remove or reduces coke. This is not persuasive as Guo specifically describes his catalyst as anti-coking, i.e., a catalyst meant to remove or reduce coking.
Applicants argue that Guo does not disclose or suggest that its catalyst promotes oxidation of coke or suggest that its catalyst promotes formation of a filamentous coke morphology. This is not persuasive as these are properties of the catalyst, and the catalyst of Guo reads directly on the claimed catalyst and would be expected to have the same properties.
Applicants argue that the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the references. This is not persuasive as Carter discloses a coating or barrier layer that reduces coke formation, and Guo discloses a coating that reduces coke formation, and the skilled artisan trying to reduce coke formation would have looked to the art for known methods and catalysts for reducing coke formation to improve the coke reducing function.
Applicants argue that one would not combine the references as one is directed towards fuel nozzles for aircraft and the other petrochemical cracking furnace tubes. This is not persuasive as both references are directed to reducing the coke that is formed when hydrocarbon sources in contact with hot metal surfaces leave carbon deposits.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights